• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

I saw somebody say that this shouldn’t be treated as a criminal trial. Kavanaugh isn’t innocent until proven guilty. He needs to prove himself worthy of a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in this country. He hasn’t done so.
 
PhDeac said:
I saw somebody say that this shouldn’t be treated as a criminal trial. Kavanaugh isn’t innocent until proven guilty. He needs to prove himself worthy of a lifetime position as one of the most powerful people in this country. He hasn’t done so.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is also why it’s odd that Republicans care. It’s not like they can’t insert some other Ivy League conservative judge who hasn’t been accused of attempted rape to take Kavanaugh’s place.
 
Les Grossman said:
Exactly. Which is also why it’s odd that Republicans care. It’s not like they can’t insert some other Ivy League conservative judge who hasn’t been accused of attempted rape to take Kavanaugh’s place.
Click to expand...

Trump knows such a persons? :)
 
Les Grossman said:
Exactly. Which is also why it’s odd that Republicans care. It’s not like they can’t insert some other Ivy League conservative judge who hasn’t been accused of attempted rape to take Kavanaugh’s place.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These guys are a dime a dozen. They can find one with a transparent record who hasn’t tried to rape anybody. At least there was kind of an excuse with Clarence Thomas because they wanted a black conservative judge.
 
Les Grossman said:
Exactly. Which is also why it’s odd that Republicans care. It’s not like they can’t insert some other Ivy League conservative judge who hasn’t been accused of attempted rape to take Kavanaugh’s place.
Click to expand...

They can’t ever admit fault. Same reason you have the rubes’ undying loyalty of Trump. It’s all about owning the libs. Nothing else matters.
 
Wrangor said:
Aren't they required to go through hearings? Accomplish due diligence? Allow majority and minority senators to ask questions to the candidate? I am not a McConnell guy, but I don't think you can just straight vote in a Supreme Court Justice without going through the proper procedure. Perhaps you can, and this is all just for public perception...I could be wrong on that.

Democrats started this chain of events by reducing the filibuster rule to simple majority in 2013 (You can blame it on Republicans for being hardheaded during that time, but there have been plenty of times in our country's history where a minority party wouldn't submit). Republicans continued/escalated the fight with Merrick Garland. Democrats are very obviously counter punching with the same tactic. The left gets lefter and the right gets righter. Its an ugly cycle. Not really sure of a way out. Garland was a good pick and the Republicans acted awfully. Kavanaugh is a good pick, and the Democrats are acting awfully. (I don't believe for a second that any of these accusations are based on credible evidence. Something most likely happened, but she has no way of determining that it was Kavanaugh, and his life speaks to his character, particularly with women. This isn't a Donald Trump or Bill Clinton kind of pattern). This is a delay tactic and nothing more to try and get this thing to the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed IMO, but the larger issue still exists. The good of the country is not a primary objective of either party. Power is the only currency. Not sure how you get past that in the current rule setup / political climate.
Click to expand...

This is a really shitty post. Jesus.
 
Les Grossman said:
Unless she’s some sociopath who has been hatching this scheme for years in the off chance Kavanaugh one day got nominated to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

TBF, plenty of Republicans believe that the Democrats and the Deep State colluded to illegally spy on the Trump campaign before the election and framed Trump for colluding with Russian to hack the election but that they waited until after the election to release any of the information.
 
Yeah people claiming that Dems sat on this info obviously aren’t familiar with Corey Booker. There’s no way that dude could resist becoming the face of this scandal.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
They can’t ever admit fault. Same reason you have the rubes’ undying loyalty of Trump. It’s all about owning the libs. Nothing else matters.
Click to expand...

^This. With the November elections just around the corner, backing off on Kavanaugh now would probably be the wisest move politically for the GOP, but it would infuriate their Trumpite base and much of the GOP rank-and-file pols. Why? Because for Kavanaugh to fail to reach the SC would be another victory for the hated LibDems, and there's no way that can be allowed to happen. Their base wouldn't have the pleasure of running to facebook and other social media (and message boards like this one) to taunt and rub it in on any liberals they know, and revel in how angry and upset liberals are. That's all that matters, really. Certain lobbyists and the GOP Establishment may be supporting Kavanaugh because they see him as a reliable hard-right vote on abortion, or gun control, or states rights issues, or whatever, but the average Trumpite really only cares about owning the libs. Getting Kavanaugh onto the court - especially given the controversies swirling around him - will send them into internet-surfing ecstasies.
 
wrangor makes a triumphant return to the tunnels
 
Wrangor said:
Aren't they required to go through hearings? Accomplish due diligence? Allow majority and minority senators to ask questions to the candidate? I am not a McConnell guy, but I don't think you can just straight vote in a Supreme Court Justice without going through the proper procedure. Perhaps you can, and this is all just for public perception...I could be wrong on that.

Democrats started this chain of events by reducing the filibuster rule to simple majority in 2013 (You can blame it on Republicans for being hardheaded during that time, but there have been plenty of times in our country's history where a minority party wouldn't submit). Republicans continued/escalated the fight with Merrick Garland. Democrats are very obviously counter punching with the same tactic. The left gets lefter and the right gets righter. Its an ugly cycle. Not really sure of a way out. Garland was a good pick and the Republicans acted awfully. Kavanaugh is a good pick, and the Democrats are acting awfully. (I don't believe for a second that any of these accusations are based on credible evidence. Something most likely happened, but she has no way of determining that it was Kavanaugh, and his life speaks to his character, particularly with women. This isn't a Donald Trump or Bill Clinton kind of pattern). This is a delay tactic and nothing more to try and get this thing to the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed IMO, but the larger issue still exists. The good of the country is not a primary objective of either party. Power is the only currency. Not sure how you get past that in the current rule setup / political climate.
Click to expand...

*****
 
What is the delay for Christine Ford?

Law Enforcement has now told her and her attorney and the MEDIA Twice that they have no play here. It is a political matter to be exact.

—— as a media watcher,which organizations are covering the response from the FBI?

— Does Christine need more time to get her 36 year story straight?

—— —————————————————————————
Dearest Christine,

It appears that Judge Kavanaugh is ready to testify and boy he sure seems confident. Doesn’t that just piss you off,Christine? I mean,after all the suffering and decades of trauma? And don’t forget,Christine..Kavanaugh may have “inadvertently” killed you that night..do you really want to be responsible if all of your 320 million fellow citizens have to live with a lifetime appointment of a potential murderer to our highest court?

** for fans of the ‘art of the smear’..ponder the use of “inadvertently” in the letter..nice bit of agit-prop**

Anyway,come on Christine.You owe it to yourself and your country.

So let’s have your attorney suspend the game playing..nobody asked you to sit at the same table as your accuser at the same time as you cunningly tried to imply...you wily attorneys,you.

You will testify from the same table as Brett but not at the same time..a bit awkward for everyone in the room wouldn’t you agree?

And Christine,as you and your attorney already know (does the Press?),you still have the option to appear publicly or privately. It is your choice. The committee has deferred to you,above any desire Mr Kavanaugh or other interests may have.

— So please Christine, please consider that the claims you are making have come at the end of what has been a bitter and partisan fight with many questions and accusations faced by Mr Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearing. We would all appreciate it if you would come in and publicly or privately testify in front of this committee in 6 days time.

— Regards,

Your Fellow Americans.
 
Lectro said:
What is the delay for Christine Ford?

Law Enforcement has now told her and her attorney and the MEDIA Twice that they have no play here. It is a political matter to be exact.

—— as a media watcher,which organizations are covering the response from the FBI?

— Does Christine need more time to get her 36 year story straight?

—— —————————————————————————
Dearest Christine,

It appears that Judge Kavanaugh is ready to testify and boy he sure seems confident. Doesn’t that just piss you off,Christine? I mean,after all the suffering and decades of trauma? And don’t forget,Christine..Kavanaugh may have “inadvertently” killed you that night..do you really want to be responsible if all of your 320 million fellow citizens have to live with a lifetime appointment of a potential murderer to our highest court?

** for fans of the ‘art of the smear’..ponder the use of “inadvertently” in the letter..nice bit of agit-prop**

Anyway,come on Christine.You owe it to yourself and your country.

So let’s have your attorney suspend the game playing..nobody asked you to sit at the same table as your accuser at the same time as you cunningly tried to imply...you wily attorneys,you.

You will testify from the same table as Brett but not at the same time..a bit awkward for everyone in the room wouldn’t you agree?

And Christine,as you and your attorney already know (does the Press?),you still have the option to appear publicly or privately. It is your choice. The committee has deferred to you,above any desire Mr Kavanaugh or other interests may have.

— So please Christine, please consider that the claims you are making have come at the end of what has been a bitter and partisan fight with many questions and accusations faced by Mr Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearing. We would all appreciate it if you would come in and publicly or privately testify in front of this committee in 6 days time.

— Regards,

Your Fellow Americans.
Click to expand...
...
446fd5972bf00cf4452e1310c3d2a807.jpg
 
Les Grossman said:
I don’t quite understand the “I don’t believe for a second that any of these accusations are based on credible evidence” comment. It’s not like the person coming forward wasn’t there when it happened. So, for the accuser, the accusation is based upon the most credible evidence one can have - her experience.

Now, I think what you meant to say is that you don’t find these accusations credible because you believe the accuser is lying. Your only reasoning for this conclusion seems to be “Kavanaugh’s life...particularly with women.” This seems odd to me since I doubt you know him personally or any of the women that do.

Also, even if Kavanaugh has treated every woman he’s ever encountered since that night with the utmost respect, that doesn’t make the accusation false.

So, the question is do you believe the accuser. In terms of actual evidence relevant to the issue at hand she has provided two ways to substantiate her claims: 1) She brought this episode up years ago with no motive of any kind with a therapist. So, it seems odd she would lie about it then. 2) She passed a lie detector test.

That is actual evidence that tends to lend credibility to her accusations. Unless she’s some sociopath who has been hatching this scheme for years in the off chance Kavanaugh one day got nominated to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

She can’t say anything for sure about that night. She doesn’t even know how she got there, how she got home. She can’t be sure about who was there. I don’t doubt something happened, but best case scenario is that this is a he said she said situation. That isn’t credible to run in someone’s career.

What evidence do you speak of? Her saying he might have done something 36 years ago that is corroborated by zero witnesses who can even name the Party, the attendees, or the act?

I am not saying the woman wasn’t intimidated or didn’t experience an attempted assault. I am saying that there is no way to prove who did it, and that this is a clear tool being used by the Democrats to delay the process through the mid terms.

If an investigating agency took this case the only evidence they would have would be testimony. It would be he said / she said. There is no physical evidence to investigate. Even if they could could place Kavanaugh at the alleged party, they could never put him in a room because his testimony is just as valid as hers. Even if they could somehow put him in the room, they could not determine that he committed a crime. Even in the unlikely case that you have additional testimonies, he would have testimonies (and already has some) that deny the claims.

This is all for public perception and it is unfortunate imo. I am saying it is not right to ruin a persons career when there are unprovable accusations in which the accuser pretty much admits they can’t remember the situation at all and there is no physical evidence to support the claim.

Maybe he did this, maybe he didn’t. An unprovable accusation that does not show a pattern in his career shouldn’t convince anyone looking at this logically. In order to accept the premise that Kavanaugh committed this act you are required to take dozens of complete assumptions as absolute fact. That is a terrible precedent to establish in my opinion.

Just own up that this Kavanaugh is the victim of swift boating and move on. I don’t post here because logic is often thrown out the window in the face of political expediency, but this scenario is just too much. It’s like reverso-tea party logic of defending Trump’s terrible actions for his entire life with massive leaps and assumptions. Look at the real evidence. In this case it doesn’t add up and I think the vast majority of you know it.
 
Last edited:
She can testify publicly or privately.

Dems want to believe that the claim itself is enough to disqualify and evidence be damned

After the lying I have seen these last two and a half years I would be doing myself a grave disservice were I to trust a democratic smear..another anonymous letter(s) and another unfounded investigation. It’s not becoming a pattern it is a pattern.

No doubt in my mind Christine Ford is a liar. She has had her social media scrubbed and far from being intimidated is rather known as a campus bully and rabid anti-Trumper and protester on multiple fronts. In a word..someone who would like to have a political voice.

Well here’s your chance, Christine.

Remember what the Dems have relayed to your attorney - oh hell,your attorney is a Clinton operative- so she herself has told you:

“This is your chance. If you don’t testify then there will be no “voice”. You will not be able to trumpet your opinions at Barnes and Noble. No Book. No speaking engagements - presumably a lifetime “appointment” considering Anita’s trajectory.
So you need to consider how you want to be remembered..as someone who for a moment stepped onto the stage and made a claim only then to slink into the shadows. Consider history,Christine”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top